Deangelis v. Protective Parents Coal.
Decision Date | 02 August 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. 02-16-00216-CV,02-16-00216-CV |
Citation | 556 S.W.3d 836 |
Parties | Lori DEANGELIS and Laurie Robinson, Appellants and Appellees v. PROTECTIVE PARENTS COALITION, Jennifer Olson, Deborah Logsdon, Jayne Peery, Marie Howard, and Holly Carless, Appellees and Appellants |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Greg B. Westfall, for Appellees Peery, Jayne, Howard, Marie, Logsdon, Deborah, Olson, Jennifer, Protective Parents Coalition.
Jason C.N. Smith, Fort Worth, for Appellees Carless, Holly.
Amy M. Lorenz, Arlington, for Appellants.
PANEL: MEIER; GABRIEL and PITTMAN, JJ.
After Appellants Lori DeAngelis and Laurie Robinson (the Attorneys) filed a "Petition for Depositions Before Suit" pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 (Rule 202 Petition), Appellees Protective Parents Coalition (PPC), Jennifer Olson, Deborah Logsdon, Jayne Peery, Marie Howard, and Holly Carless (collectively, the Court Watchers1 ) moved to dismiss the petition under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).2 The trial court granted the Court Watchers' Motions to Dismiss and awarded them partial attorney’s fees and sanctions.
In two issues, the Attorneys challenge the dismissal and the award of attorney’s fees and sanctions. The Court Watchers, as cross-appellants, challenge the trial court’s judgment, contending that the award of attorney’s fees was too low. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the Attorneys' Rule 202 Petition. Also for the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees because it utilized an incorrect standard to determine such fees and remand the case for further proceedings on that issue.
PPC describes itself as a nonprofit organization "made up of a group of parents whose purpose is to put a spotlight on questionable practices in the family law court system" that was "formed to support parents and children who do not have a voice outside the courtroom." Also, PPC’s certificate of formation states that its purpose is to promote "the protection of minor children by holding family courts accountable." In furtherance of its stated purpose, PPC members observe family court proceedings and post statements about the proceedings on PPC’s website and its Facebook page. These publicly accessible statements can be viewed and interacted with by the general public.
It is PPC’s "general position that several attorneys who receive [family court] appointments [in Tarrant County, Texas] abuse their power and act out of a profit motive more than in the best interests of the [children] they are supposed to be representing." PPC asserts that in the process of litigating family law cases, judges, attorneys, and court staff abuse their power to the detriment of children. According to PPC, it has not been well received "by the court personnel and attorneys who are being watched and reported on" by the organization. Carless, Peery, Howard, and Logsdon have all served or serve on PPC’s board of directors, and Olson is PPC’s executive director (collectively, PPC Officers).
The Attorneys are lawyers who have served in court-appointed ad litem roles in family court proceedings in Tarrant County and are the subjects of some of the statements posted on PPC’s website and Facebook page.
In December 2015, the Attorneys filed a verified Rule 202 Petition seeking pre-suit discovery from the Court Watchers. In their Rule 202 Petition, the Attorneys alleged that they were the subject of defamatory statements published on PPC’s website and Facebook page and that these statements damaged their collective and individual reputations. The Attorneys asked the trial court to allow broad discovery from the Court Watchers, including a request that the trial court authorize depositions of each Court Watcher, ostensibly to investigate potential and anticipated defamation claims. The Attorneys also pled that if the trial court granted the petition, they would "bear the reasonable expenses" related to "obtaining the requested depositions and documents."
From PPC itself, in addition to the deposition of PPC’s authorized representative, the Attorneys sought the production of a multitude of documents and information related to twenty-five unique categories:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sullo v. Kubosh
...allegedly barratrous sale of legal services. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(3), (7) ; cf. DeAngelis v. Protective Parents Coalition , 556 S.W.3d 836, 852 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.) ("[P]ublic or private communications related to the provision of legal services to th......
-
Weber v. Fernandez
...is clear from the plaintiff's pleadings that the action is covered by the Act, the defendant need show no more."); DeAngelis v. Protective Parents Coal., 556 S.W.3d 836, 850 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.). 6. In support of his position that he is not a public figure, Fernandez primari......
-
Florez v. Olibas
...judicial pleading or filing that requests legal or equitable relief' and thus fits squarely into TCPA's covered filings." See DeAngelis, 556 S.W.3d at 849; Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem. Code Ann. § 27.001(6)("Legal action" means a lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterc......
-
Mogged v. Lindamood
...court's discretion by determining whether the amount of attorney's fees requested was 'reasonable'" under the TCPA, DeAngelis v. Protective Parent Coal., 556 S.W.3d 836, 862 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.), we conclude that the fee issue, including the trial court's award of conditiona......